[D&D 3.5/Pathfinder] House Rule for not falling off the RNG (System Design, Math)

[GhostwheelZ]

There occurs a huge problem in D&D when you add an ability score on top of another one to one of the primary abilities a character has (such as attack, saves, AC, DCs, and so on).

Why is this a problem? Because it easily allows people to fall off the RNG (random number generator). What that means is that characters end up auto-failing or auto-saving againt effects, especially if their modifiers end up at +8 or so from each other. This is especially noticeable when a bunch of players are grouped up at one end, and one person is an outlier in one way or another.

Two examples of this stick out in my mind--the monk's (and a few other classes') ability to add Wis to AC on top of Dex, and the Paladin's ability to add Charisma on top of his ability scores to saves.

Let's illustrate one of those examples--we'll go with 3.5 for this, and make a monk. The focus of this isn't "the monk is so MAD" or "the monk is underpowered", but instead to fix a design flaw in the system--falling off the RNG. So let's take a look at the monk's AC at level 20.


10 (Base) + 12 (Dexterity) + 8 (Wisdom) + 5 (Ring of Protection) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor) + 4 (Innate Monk Bonus) + 8 (Bracers of Armor) = 52 AC

On the other hand, let's compare this to a fighter.


10 (Base) + 3 (Dexterity) + 5 (Ring of Protection) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor) + 13 (+5 Mithral Full Plate) = 36 AC

As you can see, anything that has a decent chance of hitting the monk will always hit the fighter, making his AC and money he spent into raising it useless, while anything that has only a chance of hitting the fighter is going to always miss the monk. This is a problem.

The same thing goes for the paladin. The paladin can easily have a bonus of +6 to +12 on top of what everyone else has (depending on his Constitution), which leads to the same problem as above.

My proposed solution to adding an additional ability score (and class ability) onto AC is making it instead damage reduction. So for example, instead of getting +12 to AC from the monk innate bonus to AC and Wisdom to AC, the monk at that level would gain DR 12/--. Just a note, this means that if we're assuming maximum HD per level, that the difference in tankiness between a fighter and a monk is 40, which is covered as soon as the monk takes 3-4 hits (which also has the potential to allow the monk to be less MAD, as their need for constitution can be shored up by a high Wisdom score). If this too weak? Too strong? I'd like more thoughts.

Regarding the paladin, I would like to do something similar. Instead of just getting a straight bonus to saves, instead paladins would have something that could introduce a little counterplay into the system (that is, something that can be countered by the correct actions/items taken): the much coveted spell resistance.

We have three ways to calculate it:


SR = 11 + Paladin Level
SR = 7 + Charisma Modifier x 3
SR = Charisma Modifier + Paladin Level

Each of these puts emphasis on different things. The first puts the emphasis only on the paladin level, allowing the paladin to ignore Charisma as far as Divine Grace goes. The second makes Charisma important, allowing someone to dip (as normal) into Paladin and get the bonus. The third involves both of them.

I'm not entirely happy with this, so I welcome other suggestions for fixing the Paladin's bonus to saves.

Any thoughts on either of these? Too strong, not strong enough, wrong direction entirely, and so on?

[Feint's End]

There is no underlying problem. A monk optimised for ac beats the fighter that's true but the monk will deal abysmal damage making him effectively useless in combat. If somebody wants to optimise for ac let them have it but I wouldn't expect too much damage (or utility) from them.
Besides you will always have ac differences in a group and ac isn't that good of a defense anyways. It's also not really good PO (kinda like the ubercharger)

The saves is a stronger contestant for an actual problem but having high saves and getting hard to dominate, poisoned is kinda the paladins thing. Casters can get simular saves with the right buffs too and most other classes are good in the saves which fit their class so I also don't really see the problem here.


The problems you have shown seem to only occur in groups which are low op and optimise the low opness (which is kinda funky but it seems to be the case here).

[GhostwheelZ]

Not the point. I don't care whether it's "balanced" or "underpowered" or whatever. That isn't the point of this thread. The point is to keep people close on the RNG as far as the d20 is concerned. As I mentioned above.

Besides, you could just as easily stick a level of monk on anything wis-based to get the same thing.

[lytokk]

If you're going to go with capping AC as much as possible, don't forget for the fighter, a +5 Tower Shield, so another 9 AC, bringing him up to 45, much closer to the monks 52. And then Combat Expertise, which a level 20 fighter maxed for AC would have taken, so up to 50. I wouldn't say improved because regular combat expertise would put him at the same BAB as the monk. Feats are a fighters only class ability, so you have to imagine a fighter would use them.

[Madeiner]

I noticed a similar problem with my game, only with buff spells instead of base AC, as we use very few magic items.

I wouldn't dabble with DR, as then you have to worry about damage per attack.

I see two possible solutions here:

1 - Create a new mechanic to reduce damage. Call it damage resistance. Or even keep the DR, but change it so it only reduces damage on a turn-based timer, not an attack-based one. That way it doesnt matter if someone is using one powerful attack or several weak ones, you get the same return. I'm actually using this version IMC for resistance to elements, and it works.

2- Introduce diminishing returns on things. If you have more than (insert formula) AC, the next AC bonus you get is halved, and so on.

[Zombimode]

There occurs a huge problem in D&D when you add an ability score on top of another one to one of the primary abilities a character has (such as attack, saves, AC, DCs, and so on).

You are trying to fix something that isn't broken. Also, the nature of your inquiry and the examples you are giving indicate to me that those "problems" you are trying to construct here don't stem from actual play experience. Instead, it seem that you were analyzing the system from an outward standpoint, over-thinking it, but were missing some crucial details.

Yes, there are instances of very big differences in AC, attack bonus, saves etc. In the vast majority of cases the reason for the difference lies in a difference in priority. Say, on the low end of the attack bonus is the frail wizard, on the high end the speced out warrior. Those differences work as intended. Also, the natural 20 / natural 1 rules for attack and saves ensure that there is always a possibility for success/failure.

Now, to your examples.

First, you are looking at level 20. But the situation at level 20 is almost irrelevant if you are trying to analyze the system for "problems". In the overwhelming majority of playtime, the character ARE NOT level 20 - not even close. Most games end looooong before level 20. Instead try to look at level 3, level 6, level 9, level 12, level 15 and make independent observations on those level ranges.

Second, your numbers are obviously constructed to prove your point (so the fighter does not have an animated shield +5? but the monk has a Dex of 32 and a Wis of 26 on top of every AC boosting item to the max? yeah, that is not only rather unlikely but also biased).
A Paladin having high saves is not a bug - its a feature.


Bottom line: try to actually play the game for an extended period of time.

[Feint's End]

Not the point. I don't care whether it's "balanced" or "underpowered" or whatever. That isn't the point of this thread. The point is to keep people close on the RNG as far as the d20 is concerned. As I mentioned above.

Besides, you could just as easily stick a level of monk on anything wis-based to get the same thing.

Or, you know, just take a monks belt and have the same result.

You are not applying your own principles on the whole game. Is an ubercharger too RNG according to your point of view? Because everything that has enough health to challenge one is too much for every other member in your group (at least hp wise and with that many HD it might as well have enormous saves and sr). So should damage be capped at some point? And damage above cap poses a penalty to ac?

The thing is that the problems you are talking about are a minor issue in the game. They can become a major one if a player decides to optimise them or make great use of them but so are many other parts of the game and some of those other parts are far, far more devastating towards game balance than the issue you are talking about.

[Chronos]

Again, though, why is it a problem? I'm a physicist. There are some problems in physics I can do effortlessly, 20 times out of 20, that would cause difficulty for most people. This is because I've worked hard to specialize in being good at physics. Similarly, a fighter, who's specialized in being good at hitting things, should be able to hit things 20 (or at least 19) times out of 20, that would cause difficulty for most people.

Now, there are some problems in physics which still cause difficulty for me, and some problems I wouldn't stand a chance at all of solving. But by the same token, there are some monsters that a fighter will still have difficulty hitting, or may not have any chance at all against. Remember, the numbers get big on both sides of the table, as power and levels go up.

[Yanisa]

This sounds really hard to do. Its a common thing within DnD to specialize. And when one person does but the rest don't, huge gaps appears. Basically what you (seem to) want is that (over)specialization doesn't influence dice rolls (that strongly), but DnD specialization is finding the biggest pile of numbers to add to that dice roll, killing the RNG. (Or against a dice roll in the case of AC or Saves.) You can patch it, but it is kind of inherent to the system itself.

[GhostwheelZ]

Thanks for critiquing my proposed house rules instead of trying to convince me my original point is flawed everyone! [/sarcasm]

Seriously. I don't care about why or how it's "not a problem". I'm proposing solutions. Address them. Stay on topic. Stop derailing the thread. Don't tell me why it's not a problem. I don't care about that. Critique the proposed solutions please, and their effects on the game.

[Snowbluff]

I think your problem is that the fighter isn't building up for AC. For example, where are his +5 Defending Armor Spikes? I know it doesn't work in PF, but I usually go out of my way to ave like 15 weapons strapped to my arms in 3.5.

[GhostwheelZ]

I think your problem is that the fighter isn't building up for AC. For example, where are his +5 Defending Armor Spikes? I know it doesn't work in PF, but I usually go out of my way to ave like 15 weapons strapped to my arms in 3.5.

Which the monk couldn't do as well? Or carry a +5 defending dagger?

Again. PLEASE. Stop derailing the thread. I don't care about how or why I'm wrong. Address the suggestions in the OP. Stop arguing with me about why it's not a problem! Stay on topic, please!

[Snowbluff]

Which the monk couldn't do as well? Or carry a +5 defending dagger? The fighter can wear armor. He can always have at least 2 more defending weapons than the monk. Also, a shield (which is where the second defending weapon is). At freaking 16 to the fighters AC.


Again. PLEASE. Stop derailing the thread. I don't care about how or why I'm wrong. Address the suggestions in the OP. Stop arguing with me about why it's not a problem! Stay on topic, please!
SR should only ever be 11+level or 5+ level.

[Firechanter]

Again. PLEASE. Stop derailing the thread. I don't care about how or why I'm wrong.

This is pretty golden. What is anyone supposed to add to this thread, when your very premise is flawed and, thus, you are dealing with a problem that doesn't even exist, and you don't want to hear about that?

[Feint's End]

Again. PLEASE. Stop derailing the thread. I don't care about how or why I'm wrong. Address the suggestions in the OP. Stop arguing with me about why it's not a problem! Stay on topic, please!

You know it would be totally legit if you asked for help making your house rules work because you would feel more comfortable having similar saves and ac across the board.
It is for a good part the way you asked. We all try to explain to you that your premise (on what you build your house rules) is not working.

You are essentially trying to balance something that does not need balancing. Probably even creating more problems than you are trying to solve.
I don't know. Maybe other posters here can do it but I at least cannot help you find a solution for a problem, which I perceive as non-existant (or so minor that if you try to fix this one you might as well fix the whole game).

Are your house rules fair? Maybe, maybe not. Snowbluff already pointed out that 7+X seems very odd for a game where everything is essentially 5+ or 11+ for sr (isn't 10+ a thing too?).

Edit: Thank you Firechanter! You summed up my post pretty nicely.

[Zombimode]

Seriously. I don't care about why or how it's "not a problem". I'm proposing solutions. Address them. Stay on topic. Stop derailing the thread. Don't tell me why it's not a problem. I don't care about that. Critique the proposed solutions please, and their effects on the game.

Any solution needs to be discussed in light of the problem it is trying to fix. Since in this case the proposed problem is not problematic, the "solutions" can't be meaningfully discussed.

[GhostwheelZ]

Would there be something better than giving SR to replace the bonus to saves? And is it fine that the SR requires more levels in paladin, unlike Divine Grace as-is?

[Feint's End]

Would there be something better than giving SR to replace the bonus to saves? And is it fine that the SR requires more levels in paladin, unlike Divine Grace as-is?

It would be entirely reasonable to limit the cha bonus to saves by number of levels acquired. This would limited dipping paladin to a minimum while simultaneously not penalising those who stay in class.


The sr thing is not necessary.

[GhostwheelZ]

I don't like that solution and would rather find another one. Thus why I prefer SR over a straight bonus to things that modify the d20 by more than a few points. Any other ideas, or is SR the best way to go?

[Feint's End]

Could somebody else please do this? I have to board a plane now. If the thread is still actively running in 2 hours I'll answer then.

[lytokk]

I would think that paladins having SR of their Paladin Level + Charisma bonus could be a bit of a boon to the class. Mabe 5+PL+CHA. Of course, the problem with SR is its a standard action to drop your spell resistance in order to have a buffing spell or any healing spell cast on you.

Monk AC as DR, reminds me of, I think in UA an alternate armor feature where armor functions as DR as opposed to an AC boost. At least I think it was UA. Don't have that book in front of me but I can look into it later.

[GhostwheelZ]

If it was 5 + Paladin level + Charisma modifier, you'd end up with something like 5 + 1 + 3 at first level, which isn't quite enough to get you around where we want (~50% chance of being missed), while at 20th level you get to around 5 + 20 + 8 (33), which is a big difficult for most equal-level spellcasters to go through--though I guess it would be evened out by Spell Penetration and the like at that level.

[GhostwheelZ]

In a campaign where armor limits the maximum bonus to AC your Dexterity can give. The Fighter can have similarly high Str and Con, but he isn't going to get as much of a return from high Dex since his armor limits him.

[Eldest]

I don't like that solution and would rather find another one. Thus why I prefer SR over a straight bonus to things that modify the d20 by more than a few points. Any other ideas, or is SR the best way to go?

SR is a bad thing for a player to have.
1. The best spells are SR: No. You just took away the way to save against them, because you decided you didn't like the big numbers.
2. The best benificial spells are SR: Yes. You just made her block friendly people from giving her healing, buffs, etc.
3. It's easily beaten. Look at CL boosters. Now at assay spell resistance. Now at the SR: No spells. Now at spell penetration. Now at the other spells that lower spell resistance that I can't recall the name of (Perfect spell? I think?)

So no. SR is not the best way to go. The current setup is actually a better way to go.


In a campaign where armor limits the maximum bonus to AC your Dexterity can give. The Fighter can have similarly high Str and Con, but he isn't going to get as much of a return from high Dex since his armor limits him.

So you were rating two of them on their defensive potential without speccing both for defense? Why does that seem like a good idea to you?

[GhostwheelZ]

I'm entirely open to making this a special form of SR that does not come up against beneficial/harmless spells. Would that make it better?

Alternatively, like I said, I'm not entirely happy with the solution of giving them SR instead of the flat bonus. Do you have any other ideas? I'm certainly open to them. (Please don't bother mentioning "just keep it how it is.")

EDIT: I don't think CL boosters are a huge problem, since most monsters the party faces don't tend to carry those. At higher levels it's mostly spell-like abilities.


So you were rating two of them on their defensive potential without speccing both for defense? Why does that seem like a good idea to you?

Because both are specced normally without using things that I consider cheesy. Animated shields are... disgusting to say the least, in my opinion (YMMV, I prefer Pathfinder's version if we have to come down to it, and have a shield variant I use in my games (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Broken_Shields_(3.5e_Variant_Rule))), and wearing a shield normally is going to result in a HUGE decrease in damage. OTOH, the monk doesn't lose any real damage by speccing that way, especially when adding things like Shadow Blade to the mix.

[Eldest]

I'm entirely open to making this a special form of SR that does not come up against beneficial/harmless spells. Would that make it better?

Alternatively, like I said, I'm not entirely happy with the solution of giving them SR instead of the flat bonus. Do you have any other ideas? I'm certainly open to them. (Please don't bother mentioning "just keep it how it is.")

EDIT: I don't think CL boosters are a huge problem, since most monsters the party faces don't tend to carry those. At higher levels it's mostly spell-like abilities.

Man. Some way of saving against only hostile spells. If only there was some existing way of doing that. Now let's do the math again, using just what's been brought up in the thread.

Monk: 10 (Base) + 12 (Dexterity) + 8 (Wisdom) + 5 (Ring of Protection) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor) + 4 (Innate Monk Bonus) + 8 (Bracers of Armor) = 52 AC
Damage: 2d10+10, if that. (20 in str, +5 amulet), spread out over 5 attacks at a +25 to hit.

10 (Base) + 3 (Dexterity) + 5 (Ring of Protection) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor) + 13 (+5 Mithral Full Plate) +5 (Defending spikes) + 7 (Animated shield)= 48 AC
Damage: 1d10+23 spread out over 4 attacks at a +30 to hit, with power attack as an option.

These are fractions of a build.

[GhostwheelZ]

Please read the thread. I don't care about being "proven" wrong. You're not going to change my mind. You can either assist, and help giving me suggestions on how to precisely work this in the best way possible, or I'm just going to ignore you.

Now, is SR the best way to go if it only activates against hostile spells?

[GhostwheelZ]

But really, this is the first thread in ages were I've seen someone seriously suggest the monk is OP.

FFS. Did I say that? Please stop strawmanning. I said I don't like people falling off the RNG. You can stick the monk onto a druid and get the same thing. Or give someone a monk's belt. Or with a feat and a monk level give the Wizard his Int modifier to AC.

AGAIN. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES I NEED TO SAY IT. The specifics aren't the point. I'm trying to find something else to give characters as an alternate to adding more than one ability score to a d20 RNG-based ability/defense.

[lytokk]

Here, its on d20SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm)

The armor as damage reduction formula they use. Using that, and a guess, I would say the monks armor bonus and damage reduction now half of the normal, so your monk would have 6 less AC and a DR of 6.

[Eldest]

There is also a defense bonus that you may wish to look at. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm)

[GhostwheelZ]

So should I go with DR instead of AC given from wis to AC equal to the amount of Wisdom lost? What kind of impact does this have on the game? And is this too weak or too strong compared to the amount of AC being lost? Should it be 1/2 Wis as DR, or double Wis as DR?

[ngilop]

FFS. Did I say that? Please stop strawmanning. I said I don't like people falling off the RNG. You can stick the monk onto a druid and get the same thing. Or give someone a monk's belt. Or with a feat and a monk level give the Wizard his Int modifier to AC.

AGAIN. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES I NEED TO SAY IT. The specifics aren't the point. I'm trying to find something else to give characters as an alternate to adding more than one ability score to a d20 RNG-based ability/defense.


I have a non derailing point and suggestion.

just stop playing D&D/PF/D20 in general if you find that you abhor a basic premise of a gme, then yous hould not be playing that game.

I suggest GURPS and I hear a lot of eople on this site talk good about fate, theres always world of darkness and Risus as well:)

[GhostwheelZ]

Also, does that work then? 5 + Paladin level + Charisma mod spell resistance that only activates when targeted by hostile spells?

[Eldest]

I have a non derailing point and suggestion.

just stop playing D&D/PF/D20 in general if you find that you abhor a basic premise of a gme, then yous hould not be playing that game.

I suggest GURPS and I hear a lot of eople on this site talk good about fate, theres always world of darkness and Risus as well:)

There are also pretty good retroclones (I like swords and wizardry), and legend.

[thatryanguy]

My main problem with this idea is that it basically says that combatants stand completely still and smack each other.. Dodging isn't an option, blocking isn't an option. You're getting hit either way, and probably taking damage, provided you're not wearing a lot of armor, or very little armor (since both can raise your AC significantly, depending on class and options)

[Jormengand]

If you had 7+CHA+level SR (or even 5+CHA+level, but we'll use the former as an example) you would find exactly the same problem.

At second level, Pally mcPaladin has 2+7+4=13 SR. Not impossible to get through, but a pretty strong ability for the level.

At 20th level, Pally Lord of Paladins has 27+CHA. CHA could easily be +4 for existing, +5 from levels and permanent boost items, +3 from an item that boosts CHA, which means that he has SR 39. You see the problem here? He can't be touched by Eldritch knights, other paladins, or rangers. Straight-classed wizards, sorcerers and so forth will have a very difficult time of it, and I'm sure there's a way of adding enough that they can never actually beat your SR.

The paladin falls off the RNG.

Incidentally, I've never seen a case of a paladin falling off the RNG just because of his +CHA to saves, but even if this is a problem that needs fixing, this isn't the way to do it.

EDIT: The paladin also loses the benefits of the SR if he multiclasses, because it will tail off too quickly for his CHA to make up for it.

[GhostwheelZ]

How then would you do it, assuming that's the case?

[Jormengand]

How then would you do it, assuming that's the case?

If I wanted to keep people on the RNG...

I would completely re-write 3.5 from the ground up, or play E6, or use another system, or ask my players not to optimise too much.

[Snowbluff]

My main problem with this idea is that it basically says that combatants stand completely still and smack each other.. Dodging isn't an option, blocking isn't an option. You're getting hit either way, and probably taking damage, provided you're not wearing a lot of armor, or very little armor (since both can raise your AC significantly, depending on class and options)

Saying nothing for mobile fighting options, defensive actions, and maneuvers...

[Epsilon Rose]

It's probably also worth pointing out that giving out lots of dr/- heavily penalizes characters that make lots of little attacks (like twf characters and many melee monsters) while leaving characters that deal all of their damage in a fewer hits (Power attackers) or characters that do energy damage (mages using touch attacks) relatively unscathed. Seeing as the many attackers are already at a disadvantage, this seems like something that should be avoided.